The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

First topic message reminder :

NOTE: This is the second part of the 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame thread. The first part can be found here: https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely, it doesn't matter how fast he was compared to those of the 70's and later? There is exemplary anecdotal evidence that he was the fastest of the early Lindwall era and for thirty years before.

Precisely, and the only thing that really matters. He was undoubtedly faster than anything had been before, at the time, or shortly afterwards. But we should be wary of people who say "I saw Larwood and Thompson bowl, and Larwood was as fast": they are using different frames of reference for comparison.

In contrast Swann has 50 LBWs out of 166 wickets. Perhaps as tellingly, he has 50 LBWs to 31 bowleds.

Panesar has 39 LBWs to 26 bowleds out of 140 wickets.

I think it's fair to say that Underwood (as Gibbs before him) was probably harshly treated by umpires.

Corporal, I did vote YES for Gibbs originally (after much thought). I do feel Underwood was a superior bowler though.

Just checked out rankings, and it seems Gibbs placed 7th in our all-time spinners list with Underwood 9th. However on closer examination I find that I myself ranked Underwood at 5 (with the top 4 being members of our original 30) and Gibbs at 10. On reflection it's probably wrong of me to have ranked him ahead of Grimmett, but I still feel he very much deserves his place in our HoF. As Mike says, probably the best spinner of his type (ie the more "defensive" role).

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Corporal.
Amazingly, given Underwood's style and references to his 'arm ball', only 24 of his 297 test victims were LBW

Umpiring has obviously changed dramatically. This is really down to three factors although most commentators erroneously attribute this to the DRS which is probably the least important factor.

1) Umpiring has become much more professional and dramatically more correct decisions are being made, even over the last 5-10 years. Thus, it is expected that 95-100% of the time they should be able to back their judgment and umpiring skills without the issue of so-called 'doubt' coming into it.

2) Hawk-eye has shown that, to the spinner, more balls are hitting the stumps than previously thought. Even when the batsman plays forward if the ball strikes below the knee-roll and isn't turning an unusually large amount it will usually hit the stumps. However, it has also shown that to seamers more balls are going over the top than previously assumed.

3) The DRS perhaps means that umpires are willing to make 'more aggressive' decisions where they feel it is tight but still hitting in the knowledge that it can be overturned if they get it wrong. However, I can't really see this as a factor - I can't imagine that an international umpire in any way uses different criteria whether DRS is or is not in play.

Mike, look away now! Time for some stats and Underwood's Test averages by country.

In England - 145 wkts @ 24.24
In Australia - 50 wkts @ 31.48
In India - 54 wkts @ 26.51
In New Zealand - 24 wkts @ 13.54
In Pakistan - 11 wkts @ 38.09
In Sri Lanka - 8 wkts @ 11.87
In West Indies - 5 wkts @ 62.80

As a generalisation I guess that England and NZ would perhaps be wet pitch assisted but I doubt that played too big a role in India and Sri Lanka (only 1 Test) where he has great records on presumably turning wickets and Australia where he has a decent record on wickets you wouldn't expect to turn that much.

His averages against the six teams he played against in all Tests, both home and away, are under 30 except for against West Indies where, in 17 Tests, he only took 38 wickets at a tad under 44.

By calendar year his best period was at the start of his career in the '60s - up to 1970 he averaged under 20 in each year. Thereafter, however, 1973 was his only bad year (average over 40) pre-WSC.

Another interesting stat I found on Cricinfo is this one:

Underwood when England win - 27 Tests, 123 wkts @ 15.18
Underwood when England draw - 38 Tests, 107 wkts @ 32.02
Underwood when England lose - 21 Tests, 67 wkts @ 35.50

The high number of draws there highlights the attritional nature of the cricket in the 60s and 70s already touched on by others.

Mike - thanks. I had forgotten your YES vote for Gibbs - for which many apologies. I must have been getting muddled up with your views on the attritional batting style of Barrington!

This interesting debate has, for me, thrown up the similarities between Underwood and Gibbs, and I am definitely more inclined that I was to vote affirmative for Deadly Derek. By way of comparison, when it comes to impact Underwood has his well documented wet wicket successes, whereas I would see Gibbs as having more of a sustained impact, with his consistently high levels of wickets taken per series.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

.... Of his 297 test wickets, just 24 were LBW (79 bowled, 186 caught - 26 by the keeper - and 8 stumped), so roughly 8%. A tad better than Gibbs, but really not much, and there's no doubt this is a good argument by Mike.

A bug bear of mine (which regular readers will know) but even more of Underwood and with much better cause is that the 1970 England v Rest of World series was at the time granted Test status. Indeed, it was upon this understanding that Sobers agreed to captain the Rest of the World side featuring many other all time greats (Richards, Barlow, the Pollock brothers, Procter, Kanhai, Lloyd, Gibbs, McKenzie) following the cancellation of the South Africa tour here. Two years after this highly competitive and compelling series had been played, the cricketing authorities shamelessly reneged on their promise to Sobers and retrospectively withdrew Test match status.

It is reasonably well known - at least amongst the old buffers on here (thanks again, Alfie! ) - that the Glamorgan opening batsman Alan Jones played his only game for England in this series. Despite Jones having been selected for what was described as a Test match and watched by spectators who bought tickets for what was described as a Test match, the official history books now claim Jones never played a Test match.

What is less well known is that Underwood took six wickets in the three matches that he played in this series. Those six wickets were Test wickets at the time and for the next two years. Just like Jones' single Test cap, they were then forever snatched away with the utimate consequence that he never reached officialy reached the 300 Test wicket milestone.

In a 2005 interview, Underwood reflected: ''When they took away Test status, that was a blow. I mean Brian Luckhurst - he grafted for that hundred at Nottingham. Against that attack, it should have counted as two Test centuries. And another thing - if the games had been official, I would have reached 300 Test wickets!''.

And, yes, you've guessed it - none of those six wickets were LBWs.

Interestingly, having done a quick bit of number crunching, it appears that Chandrasekhar (the only spinner with a better s/r than Underwood in the period Underwood bowled), had 42 LBWs in his 242 wickets. A high proportion of which were taken in India. (Not that I'm suggesting anything )

Hoggy - I get the impression the 606 v2 crowd are starting to come on to this very damp thread with their rugs and knitting needles ....

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Interestingly, having done a quick bit of number crunching, it appears that Chandrasekhar (the only spinner with a better s/r than Underwood in the period Underwood bowled), had 42 LBWs in his 242 wickets. A high proportion of which were taken in India. (Not that I'm suggesting anything )

Ha, not at all, Hoggy

Some great info floating around here that I never had an inkling of before. Admittedly, and perhaps rather strangely, this group of candidates is possibly the one I know least about.

To be fair, this is an interesting bunch of nominees. Only Trueman is really a "well-known" great. Sutcliffe was a great player but overshadowed (unfairly) by Hobbs, although I can't see him having any trouble gaining entry to our (knowledgeably picked) HoF. Statham was a very good supporting act. And Underwood has clearly generated debate.

guildfordbat wrote:

In a 2005 interview, Underwood reflected: ''When they took away Test status, that was a blow. I mean Brian Luckhurst - he grafted for that hundred at Nottingham. Against that attack, it should have counted as two Test centuries. And another thing - if the games had been official, I would have reached 300 Test wickets!''.

Certainly got a point. Luckhurst battled away for 135 overs for his 113*, throughout the winning chase of 284. Among the bowlers were Procter (20 overs - 0 for 23) Sobers (18 overs - 0 for 24 ), Gibbs (31 overs - 0 for 40 ). By the time you add in Barlow, McKenzie and Intikhab it's a formidable and varied attack...

I think Walcott Sutcliffe and Trueman look fairly safe for the yes vote majorities so I'm seeking material for the other two.

Liked Hoggy's point earlier about Underwood's brilliance on damp wickets being almost used against him , with the contrast between his success in such conditions and his more "ordinary" returns on better batting surfaces.

So I felt I should bring up a quote I read recently :

"...probably was the best of any age. There have been many in this kind; especially in England where the wet and drying pitches that serve as their killing ground occur more often than in other countries...on a turning wicket... he... was a parsimonious killer; and on a plumb , easy pitch where ...his control and variations imposed care on even the best of batsmen"

At this point I should come clean and admit what some astute readers may already have noted : the above quotes are not about Underwood - rather they are taken (selectively) from a 1979 article by Arlott about Jim Laker...

Point being , all spinners have conditions which suit them better than others , and their lesser performances in some places should not detract too much from their dazzling displays in others. Even Warne was fairly ineffective in India , and Murali suffered some heavy treatment at times in Australia.

297 wickets weren't all taken on stickies...

Now I went looking for more on Statham, who has been damned with faint praise by Mike as "a very good supporting act" ; and since Richie Benaud's views have a lot of respect on here I can do no better than quote from him , writing about 1965 :

"First , with Frank Tyson, Statham ripped through the Australian sides of 1954/55 , and then when Tyson retired he joined with Trueman in providing a fast attack fit to rank with most that have operated in Test cricket over the years.
Tyson was fast and variable; Statham was straight and honest. Trueman when he began was fast and variable too , but later he was to pick up the subtleties of the craft and became a fine bowler , as distinct from a good fast bowler.
Statham , though , was always the catalyst with these two , and in fact was the one most feared over the period by opposition batsmen - not in the physical sense but in the matter of wicket taking , for his superb accuracy and movement off the seam left little margin for error" (The italics were mine)

He goes on to describe Statham as " his speed at the time was not much less than Tyson" and "his accuracy and probing length was a great factor in the success of Tyson at the other end"
and : "Movement in the air was not one of his strongest points , but off the pitch not even Miller and Lindwall could deviate more"

... all this from an Australian captain who played with and against them all...

I suggest there is little doubt which way Benaud would be voting should he be disposed to join 606v2

The thing about Underwood was that he invariably cleaned up when the conditions were bad. That's not always an easy thing to do - when everyone is expecting you to run through a side. Yet he so rarely failed when asked to be the main man.
He didn't really need LBWs when things were going for him. All he needed was good close catchers and he was home and dry (or home and wet if conditions were soggy/sawdusty.
Older posters will recall his effort at The Oval in the 1968 Ashes Test when the entire England team - and some great names among them - were hovering round the bat as Deadly routed the Aussies.

Only briefly looking in now.

Sir Fred - you must have seen a fair bit of Statham. Any memories and views?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

In a 2005 interview, Underwood reflected: ''When they took away Test status, that was a blow. I mean Brian Luckhurst - he grafted for that hundred at Nottingham. Against that attack, it should have counted as two Test centuries. And another thing - if the games had been official, I would have reached 300 Test wickets!''.

Certainly got a point. Luckhurst battled away for 135 overs for his 113*, throughout the winning chase of 284. Among the bowlers were Procter (20 overs - 0 for 23) Sobers (18 overs - 0 for 24 ), Gibbs (31 overs - 0 for 40 ). By the time you add in Barlow, McKenzie and Intikhab it's a formidable and varied attack...

Underwood was not alone in believing his total number of Test wickets should have included those against the Rest of the World (which would have given him a tally in excess of 300). The Corporal is not alone in paying tribute to the quality of opposition.

In the words of England paceman John Snow: ''I am very proud of the 19 wickets I took against Rest of the World, even though, laughably, they have now been officially deducted from my Test playing record. They were earned the hard way against the best batsmen in the world, each trying to upstage the rest ... It was tough, very tough, but the whole exercise provided ideal practice for the coming tour of Australia.''

Does seem pretty ridiculous that the matches from that tour aren't classed as tests. Are the ones from the similar tour to Oz similarly unranked?
I believe also that WSC is not even counted as FC, is that correct?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Does seem pretty ridiculous that the matches from that tour aren't classed as tests. Are the ones from the similar tour to Oz similarly unranked?
I believe also that WSC is not even counted as FC, is that correct?

Hi Hoggy - Yes, you're right about WSC not being counted as FC.

The RofW series in Oz is similarly unranked. I don't know upon what basis that went ahead. The series here went ahead not only classed as Tests but because they were classed as Tests. It rankles me so much that this was the basis upon which Sobers offered to lead the RofW and upon which the ICC agreed at the time, only to shamefully renege on that promise two years later. As Snow testifies above, this series was truly competitive and stretching.

The Glamorgan opener Alan Jones played in the first match of that series. He apparently still has the Test match cap and jacket he was awarded on the first day. Contrary to some reports, Jones has stated that the EWCB have never asked for them back. However, the records of the EWCB and the ICC make no acknowledgement of Jones ever having played a Test match.

Reading about it, I don't think the Oz tour was accorded Test status at the time, but there's some good stuff about it here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/a-wonderful-world/2005/10/01/1127804699940.html

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Reading about it, I don't think the Oz tour was accorded Test status at the time, but there's some good stuff about it here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/a-wonderful-world/2005/10/01/1127804699940.html

Thanks, Hoggy. Cracking article.

''For the selectors and the players and everyone involved, it was a legitimate Test series. If anything, it was on a higher plain.'' - Keith Stackpole.

Mike Selig wrote:Right, time for a defence of Derek Underwood. ....

3) Underwood and Knott:

Briefly touched upon earlier. Everyone on here knows how cricket is a game of partnerships, and how being part of a great partnership is worth recognition. We recognise this with Roberts (although more as a team of 4 in his case), the 3 W's (who as guilford says are simply inseparable), Hobbs and Sutcliffe, Warne and McGrath, etc.

Is it not fair then to take into account Underwood's role in bringing out the best of the genius (I don't use the word lightly) of Alan Knott? Knott wouldn't have been known as half the keeper he was had he not been keeping to Underwood. And although this is more an eulogy of Knott's keeping than Underwood's bowling, it does mean we have something else to be thankful for. And of course, it was Underwood's bowling which created those (half) chances which Knott so brilliantly took. Sometimes a pair are not worth splitting; I certainly feel this to be the case here.

4) To conclude:

I haven't spoken about Underwood's obvious match-winning ability when the pitch was somewhat helpful. Others have done so and I have nothing to add. But I must again exhort you to judge Underwood not on who you wanted him to be, but on who he was. Which was an extraordinarily talented bowler who could put the ball on the spot ball after ball until the batsman made a mistake. Such a skill is not only technical but mental as well (just like batsmen get frustrated when they aren't scoring runs, so do most bowlers when not taking wickets). And Underwood was probably the best ever of this type. That, in itself, should be enough to guarantee him entry into our HoF.

When Hoggy first voiced his support for ''Deadly'', I probed fairly hard. I did say at the time that wasn't because I was set on a NO vote but because I did have at least some doubts. I also acknowledged then that there were most definitely plus points and I would flag these later. That time has now come.

Hoggy and Mike have already flagged many of these aspects well. I'll therefore just emphasise one of the factors highlighted by Mike and throw another into the mix.

Underwood and Knott.

In August last year, one of the stands at Kent's Canterbury ground was officially renamed ''The Underwood and Knott Stand''. Kent Chairman George Kennedy said: ''This is a wholly appropriate honour to two of the greats of Kent cricket. All over the world, the names Underwood and Knott are universally recognised as outstanding England and Kent cricketers, with the combination of, caught Knott, bowled Underwood legendary.''

YouTube doesn't obviously appear to do this partnership justice. However, the snippet below is worth a look.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4395987322466596366#


The Primary Club.

Founded in the 1950s, the Primary Club is a charity run by a group of unpaid volunteers to provide sports and recreational facilities for the blind and visually impaired. Membership is open to anyone who has been out first ball in any form or level of cricket across the world.

I joined the Primary Club well over thirty years ago and from an entirely personal perspective cannot think of many more appropriate charities to support.

Derek Underwood has been Patron of the Primary Club for the last fifteen years and according to their website ''works tirelessly on their behalf''.

guildfordbat wrote:
YouTube doesn't obviously appear to do this partnership justice. However, the snippet below is worth a look.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4395987322466596366#

It certainly is

Fists / All,
What is the deadline for voting? My cheap-day return ticket to heaven hasn't come through yet, might have to vote without literary back-up.

Tomorrow morning, mate. Let's say 10am.

Just to let you know fists all 5 yes - i'm never sure when i can be on so don't want to miss it.

Cheers

Fists,
That's 5.00 a.m. here on the West Coast of New England and I'm running a Fantasy Game over on the GolfBoard where my attention will be directed.

So I will vote now.

Interesting choices because I've watched three of our candidates play and, in addition, seen plenty of grainy images of Statham in black-and-white TV days.

(Contrary to my children's perceptions, No, I didn't watch Sutcliffe . . . . )

Sutcliffe: YES!

Trueman: YES!

Statham: YES!

Walcott: NO!
(But will share the memory of my first recollection of first class cricket, at Southampton in 1957. What an array of West Indies talent on parade! The 3 W's (Walcott thwacked a quick-fire 34), Sobers and Smith (who could have been as good as any of 'em), Wes Hall and Roy Marshall. This boy was hooked for life!)
I simply don't believe Walcott (or Weekes) has significantly stronger claims than others who haven't yet made it in to the v2 Hall. Rightly resides in the ICC Hall, and will surely be eventually deserving a place on my list.

As will:

Underwood: NO!
Met Underwood at a guest night at our club many years ago; exactly the same in the flesh as the image always projected of him.
He will rest in memory as the best "attritional" slow/medium bowler of the post-war era, with occasional spells of brilliance especially in favourable conditions.
But he was seldom an automatic choice for England selectors - I don't believe he played a full Home series of Tests until his Test career was ten years old.
Like Walcott, an eventual HOF'er for me, just not pre-eminent enough to be inducted in this second "wave".

Trueman on Trueman and Statham

Just managed to grab a quick word with Fred Trueman on the mystical Batphone. The rather one sided converrsation went something like this:

''Bl**dy 'ell, lad, can't you booger off? I've bin trying all morning to sup some of Arlott's finest Beaujolais and we've only just got shot of that Kwinigolf fellow. If that Kwini wants to bother someone 'ere, why don't he try Seve Bl**dy Ballesteros?''

I therefore had to make do with a few comments from Trueman's 1976 autobiography Ball of Fire about Brian Statham: ''... there's no question of his stature as a fast bowler. He certainly proved his greatness, and I never begrudged him his success as many have suggested.''

Trueman coninues: ''If Brian had a fault, I think it was his lack of aggression. He never won a championship for Lancashire and only once took more than 150 wickets in a county season, whereas I bowled Yorkshire to the championship half a dozen times and topped the 150 wicket mark on four occasions. Had Brian been more like me - an arrogant b*st*rd on the field - then I'm sure Lancashire would have done better.''

I think the above is very interesting and significant in respect of both Statham and Trueman himself.

Whilst Trueman is never going to be accused of being overly modest, to have taken 150 wickets on four occasions is a staggering achievement, even allowing for the greater amount of cricket played in his era. Whilst success at Test level is the ultimate proof of greatness, I do think success at domestic level also has some relevance (particularly for those players who played so much more of it) and would question whether we pay enough heed to that.

Statham's capture of more than 150 wickets on one occasion is still not be sneered at. I don't know that much of the Lancs team of Statham's time and so cannot properly comment if his being more ''aggressive'' would have propelled them to Championship success. I'll make two comments here (the second of which I think is particularly relevant to Statham's HoF nomination):

1. I know more about the Yorks team for whom Trueman played. Trueman cerainly made them a finer side but they would still have been a fine side without him.

2. A more aggressive Statham - a second Trueman if you like - might have benefitted Lancs. However, from my reading and research, I don't believe such an alternative would have benefitted England's Test team. My view is that Statham's continual willingness, calmness and accuracy provided the perfect foil to Trueman's fiery (remember the title of his autobiography) temperament and bowling.

Point 2 suggests a possibly ideal partnership. Trueman certainly recognised the partnership element in his autobiography although emphasised more the competitive element as he saw it: ''When it came to playing for England I also very badly wanted to bowl better and take more wickets than the other pace bowlers in the team, and I considered myself in competition with Brian Statham during our long partnership.''

I cannot know for sure but I have gained the impression that Statham's view would have been very different and more that expected of a ''true'' partner. A man prepared to run uphill and bowl into the wind with the reward he sought being victory for his team.

My view appears to be supported by John Arlott. Writing in 1961 in anticipation of that summer's Ashes series, he looked back to the major acts of cricketing greatness between the two teams. Having extolled the virtues of Keith Miller's bowling (and prior to saying some would place on a par with Harold Larwood's bowling in the Bodyline series), Arlott wrote: ''But did he ever bowl better than Frank Tyson when he reached the climax of his far too short career in Australia in 1954 -55? That, surely, was the greatest fast bowling ever seen, with Brian Statham peppering away with his relentless accuracy at the other end, giving the batsmen no respite.''

Arlott here highlights clearly that it was not just Trueman that Statham partnered so effectively at Test level.

Whilst - as has been rightly said before - HoF nominations aren't a popularity contest, I would question whether many other than Statham would have have been able to play alongside, let alone partner so well and so long, a man so difficult as Trueman.

My final take on these two?

Trueman - a great bowler and, in his words, ''an arrogant b*st*rd''.

Statham - a very good and perhaps a great bowler, certainly a great bowling partner.

I would welcome them both into the Hall of Fame. I also know at whose table I would prefer to be seated.

guildford,
Fortunately Seve's brilliance forever etched indelibly in my memory (a bit like Roy Marshall's), no collateral endorsement required!

Trueman egotistical incontinence almost did for my vote - fact is Brian Statham was an integral partner in two all-time great Test Match / Series winning fast bowling batteries.

(And Yorkshire could arguably be considered to have under-achieved during the Trueman era, what with Surrey's domination, and then a smattering of triumphs by counties like Hampshire whose players never got selected for England. Lancashire weren't just second or third best during Statham's era, they defined middle of the road until they stitched together their wonderful one-day teams.)

im completely behind on all this, been busy with other things, completely forgot about this sorry lads.

Voting time.
Statham:
An usung hero. Part of one of the greatest fast-bowling partnerships of all-time. The perfect foil for Tyson and Trueman. How many wickets did his accuracy and willingness to do the 'hard yards' take for them?
YES

Sutcliffe:
No real need for explanations.
YES

Trueman:
One of the great fast bowlers. Almost as good as he thought he was.
YES

Underwood:
Anyone reading this thread will have seen my views. To me a good 'keep it tight' bowler who was one of the most destructive bowlers ever when conditions suited him.
YES

Walcott:
Great batsman. Great administrator.
YES

I am giving 5 YES votes. The vote for Underwood is as much as anything to be consistent with my vote for Gibbs.

I did slightly wonder whether one or more of the three Ws benefit a tad from all beginning with the same letter.

Pleased to see Statham getting support - I do acknowledge a touch of subjectivity in wanting to see recognition of his character.

Trueman I marked down a little for the tedium of his contributions to the radio test match end of over summaries. I can hear him now "Line and Lenth" ..."Line and lenth". But he was clearly a great cricketer and easily deserving entry.

Sutcliffe - one of the all time greats.....

Kwini - does walcotts administrative and his two successes with the world cup as manager not provide that little extra boost to get him in iyo?

Voting time:

Sutcliffe: part of the greatest ever opening pair, and averaged 60 (not many did). An easy YES.

Underwood: as written up at length, the greatest ever at what he did. Another fairly easy YES.

Walcott: part of the 3 Ws and as such will forever be remembered. Great player, and done fantastic work since retirement. Another YES.

Truemann: great bowler, made 300 wickets seem achievable. Balanced against that has to be his personality. But surely not enough. YES.

Statham: regretfully I have to turn him down. Although a very very good bowler, he falls just short of being great, and there is that little extra special something missed. Many good arguments were put forward, but the doubt still remains. A regretful NO.

Votes...

Statham - His record alone makes him worthy of strong consideration, if not an automatic YES vote. However, the character and attitude of the man, as well as his participation in not one but two world class new ball pairings for England nail him on as a YES for me.

Sutcliffe - Statistically brilliant, a great Ashes record and exceptionally gritty. What more could you want from an England opening batsman? A YES from me.

Trueman - A great cricketing character whether or not his opinions and attitudes are to be applauded or not. Widely regarded as one of the greatest pace bowlers of all time and still revered as the first to 300 Test wickets. A pretty easy YES.

Underwood - This weeks most difficult decision. His record is superb but it appears that historians of the game often struggle to reserve their very highest praise for him. For this reason I was edging towards a NO until somebody (sorry, I forget who - perhaps Mike or Corporal) suggested that he was perhaps the very best defensive spin/slow bowler to play the game. With this in mind it becomes difficult to vote anything other than YES, as the Hall of Fame would not be complete without the inclusion of the masters of each aspect of the game

Walcott - I'm surprised about some of the doubt about Walcott. The only thing I can see against him (and indeed the other Ws) is that their careers were condensed into a pretty short time period. However, I believe that the Three Ws come as a package which catapulted West Indies cricket from also ran to world force in the Test Match game. An average in the mid-50s, plus a significant number of Tests behind the stumps and a strong administration career makes him a clear YES on his own.


Wow! I didn't think I'd ever give out five Yeses, but these were truly a set of candidates I believe are fully deserving of their slots in our Hall of Fame.

Votes with nominees in order according to me:

1. Sutcliffe
An all time batting great. Tremendous first class average and even better at Test level. As Haynes did for Greenidge in more recent times, I'm sure Sutcliffe's presence gave his opening partner Hobbs even more confidence and contributed to Hobbs' supreme effectiveness. YES.

2. Trueman
An all time bowling great. The first to 300 Test wickets, for so long considered ''a pursuit of the impossible''. A poor disciplinary record counts against him but does not rule him out in my book. Whilst others endured them with far more dignity, some of his outbuursts were against the pomposities of his age which seem hardly credible now. YES.

3. Walcott
As Shelsey pointed out, Walcott together with Worrell and Weekes totally transformed the West Indies' middle order and set the marker for subsequent batting greats such as Kanhai, Lloyd, Richards and Lara. Not for nothing are these three so well known. Individually, a very fine Test average for Walcott plus assorted and deservedly respected roles post playing. YES.

4. Statham
Covered in my post earlier today. His accuracy, willingness and calmness proved a perfect foil to the fiery Trueman and the blowing Tyson. Also, should not be overlooked that for a short time he had taken more Test wickets than anyone in the history of cricket. YES.

5. Underwood
Had a lot of difficulty with this one. Whilst watching as a youngish lad, he didn't do ''it'' enough for me. However, whatever I expected, ''it'' was probably unreasonable and didn't properly appreciate his nagging and consistent accuracy with subtle variations in flight and pace. Unquestionably, a maestro on damp wickets. Also a taker of prize wickets as pointed out by Hoggy; I was too flippant before about Dougie Walters falling regularly to Underwood - a mark of Underwood's strength is that he prevented Walters' supremacy as demonstrated against every other Test playing country coming to the fore against England. Despite not always being a favourite of England selectors (and I think we have to take more account of their decisions than Hoggy does), Underwood still managed to take over 300 Test wickets [you should know why I write that!]. That is testament to the man's skill, dedication and longevity. I also like the fact that he scored his one first class century in his 591st match at the age of 39 - similar to his bowling, he never gave up. Throw in as well his world renowned partnership with Knott and his post playing work for the Primary Club. In my opinion, this doesn't all make him better than Gibbs but it gets him nearer. YES.

So 5 more YES votes from me. I didn't expect that when I first saw these names but I do now believe there is an extremely strong case for each of the above.

ShahG,
Do credentials as an administrator, selector, manager, broadcaster or writer influence my votes? Absolutely not, tho' Captaincy would, hence I support Frank Worrell's induction even though I wasn't on board at the time.
By the same token, I would not have voted for Benaud, but Peter May's very iffy record as a selector/administrator does not detract from my vote for his induction.

OK voting time ...

Sutcliffe - No problem , record speaks for itself. One of the all time great batsmen , probably would have been even better regarded had he not had to compete with the magic of his partner Hobbs - YES

Walcott - Perhaps he is aided by association with the other two Ws , but again , what a record. The 1955 home series against an Australian attack boasting Lindwall , Miller and Benaud , in which he scored 827 runs including five centuries , surely clinches it - YES

Trueman - First to 300 , strike rate and average matched by very few , a great "character" of the game - even losing a point for "just not knowing what's going off out there" when commentating - he remains an easy YES

Statham - Anyone who has taken the trouble to read my earlier contributions to this block will be in no doubt as to my vote on this one. And Fred without "George" just wouldn't do * A clear YES

Underwood - Has also produced a lot of debate. The "devils advocates" almost had me wavering for a while - but I came to my senses. 297 (or 303) Test wickets , which would have been a lot more but for WSC and some perverse selections by England at times. Do not despise his virtues of economy and control on pitches that didn't lend themselves to destructive spin bowling - I remember him being entrusted with the penultimate over when Australia needed about ten to win a Test match in Melbourne - he bowled a maiden , and the draw was duly secured. For me , a definite YES

5 Yes's from me, too.

Hope my late votes count, although from the looks of things, it won't make much difference:

Trueman - YES. Only question is why wasn't he in the original 30 HoF members?

Sutcliffe - YES. Again, very easy decision as half of England's finest opening partnership, and actually the statistically better half above the legendary Hobbs.

Walcott - YES. The three Ws were all clearly magnificent players, and Walcott may well have been the finest of the three.

Underwood - YES. I think reservations about his performances on dry wickets have been over-stated. Devastating bowler when the wicket helped and at the very least a superb defensive bowler on other occasions - and we all know that sometimes just boring the batsman into a mistake is a valuable skill.

Statham - YES. The most marginal call of the 5, but even then not really that close to the borderline. His FC and Test stats are both those of a great bowler, and it was only his 'misfortune' to be a teammate of even more dangerous bowlers (Tyson during his brief heyday and Trueman for much longer). The further positive is that he was a great pressure bowler, so helped in the success of his partner as well as having plenty in his own right. Interesting comment from FST in a post from yesterday about how Fred always saw Statham as the internal competition, and how it made him strive to be better.

Any truth in the rumour that Fists has been banned for the weekend?

guildfordbat wrote:Any truth in the rumour that Fists has been banned for the weekend?

I think Fists' girlfriend has put her foot down - probably formed a alliance with Mrs Skyeman.

Guys, massive apologies! Been rushed off my feet this weekend, and that hasn't abated since getting to work this morning.

If someone would care to add up the votes for me that'd be grand, and I'll get up the new candidates later.

Sorry again.

Fists of Fury wrote:Guys, massive apologies! Been rushed off my feet this weekend, and that hasn't abated since getting to work this morning.

If someone would care to add up the votes for me that'd be grand, and I'll get up the new candidates later.

Sorry again.

As far as I can tell after a quick bit of totting up, Trueman and Sutcliffe are both in with 100% yes votes, while Statham, Underwood and Walcott also all make it with 90% of votes in the affirmative each.

All deserving members for sure. Eventually!
Wonder who's up next?
Weekes?
Woolley??

Hoggy, thanks very much.

Next batch to be issued this afternoon.

Four candidates this week, gents, as we have reached the end of the ICC Hall of Fame.

After this fortnight of voting we will hold a discussion whereby we try and agree on a further list of names that we think are worthy of being up for election, but not necessarily worthy of being elected (otherwise our debate would be all too easy).

The four candidates for this round are as follows:

Courtney Walsh
Steve Waugh
Everton Weekes
Frank Woolley

Thanks Fists

I've been trying to determine when the next ICC HOF induction is scheduled for but can't find nuffink.

Another interesting group of players.
Initially I would say that Walsh and Waugh would be strong contenders. Weekes, for me, is perhaps the weakest candidate of the three Ws. Woolley is a Kent legend and was described as a 'walking Golden Age', but do his test figures stack up, no matter how gloriously he made his runs?

Pleased the last 5 nominees were all chosen for the Hall of Fame and not too surprised that Sutcliffe and Trueman both got a clean sweep.

Walsh and Waugh are clearly 'strong contenders' as Hoggy states.

Also agree with Hoggy's initial comments about Woolley. As mentioned recently, I'm all for taking a player's county career into account but a decent Test career is normally a must as well. Is Woolley's international record good enough? Have some doubts from a quick look at his stats. More research needed.

I don't know enough about the Ws to judge them individually in order but their combined effect was massive (as stated in our consideration of Walcott) and Weekes' stats and stand out highlights are impressive. Watched 'Fire of Babylon'* last night in which Weekes was referred to as 'a pioneer' of West Indies cricket.

* Shelsey - hope you watched it too.

I forgot to get my votes in last week, but I was going to give five YES votes anyway so no harm done. Interesting bunch this week, initial thoughts are to give Waugh a YES as he turned Australia from "the best in the world" into "nearly unbeatable" as well as being a great batsman who had a few iconic innings (who can forget his 120 not out against SA in the 99 WC?). Going to need more convincing on the other three.